計算看不見的空氣？減碳政策、碳市場以及臺灣畜牧業

Abstract

為因應氣候變遷，如何減少溫室氣體排放成為政府與各產業重視的問題。在全球尺度下，工業農業，尤其是養牛業，是大宗排放源，然臺灣對比以畜牧業為主的國家，畜牧業非但不是主要碳排放源，更被視為具有潛力協助達成淨零目標的產業。面對國際碳定價制度的壓力，臺灣政府如何回應？制定與實施哪些政策？引進哪些計算方法與標準？這些制度又是如何影響畜牧業與其現場實作？本研究以臺灣主要的養豬、養雞業為研究對象，討論其如何因應碳交易市場、有何困境與未來可能如何發展。從Callon的市場化與經濟化角度出發，本文認為，將動物廢棄物轉為「碳權」的過程，動物身體與技術物質性扮演重要角色。此外，本研究也指出，市場與政策要能夠運作，必須「對齊（align）」人與非人行動者的共同利益。在拼裝理論與ANT取徑的引導下，本研究深度訪談數位豬農、雞農與永續領域專家、政策相關單位，並實際參與碳相關課程與會議、觀察牧場實作及文本分析來理解研究問題。本研究發現，雖農政單位將畜牧業視為減碳、甚至可取得碳權的產業，但實際上直接參與碳權市場者少，大部分業者都未申請碳權、間接參與，且參與前提是減碳政策與措施不能影響本業，需配合動物本身特性及既有技術物。此外，業者進入市場並非刻意為之，而是畜牧產業原本就須解決動物廢棄物問題，正好與減碳方法吻合，偶然參與市場。

In response to climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions has become a priority for governments and various industries. At the global scale, industrial agriculture—particularly cattle farming—is a major source of emissions. By contrast, Taiwan’s livestock sector is not only not a primary carbon emitter but is also seen as having potential to help achieve net-zero targets. Under pressure from international carbon-pricing regimes, how has the Taiwanese government responded? Which policies have been formulated and implemented? What calculation methods and standards have been introduced? And how do these regimes affect the livestock industry’s on-farm practices? This study focuses on Taiwan’s principal pig and chicken industries to explore how they engage with the carbon trading market, the challenges they face, and possible future developments. Drawing on Callon’s concepts of marketization and economization, this study argues that animal bodies and the materiality of related technologies play a central role in transforming animal waste into “carbon credits.” Moreover, this study contends that for markets and policies to function effectively, the interests of both human and non-human actors must be aligned. Guided by assemblage theory and Actor-Network Theory (ANT), this study involved in-depth interviews with pig and chicken farmers, sustainability experts, and policy officials; participation in carbon-related training sessions and conferences; observation of on-farm practices; and textual analyses. The findings reveal that although agricultural authorities regard the livestock sector as capable of reducing emissions and even generating carbon credits, few producers participate directly in the carbon credit market. Most have not applied for credits and only engage indirectly—and even then only on the condition that carbon-reduction policies and measures do not disrupt core operations and remain compatible with animal characteristics and existing technologies. Finally, it is shown that producers’ entry into the market was not a deliberate strategy but rather an incidental outcome: because the livestock industry inherently must manage animal waste, its practices happen to align with carbon-reduction methodologies, resulting in spontaneous market involvement.